Home Affairs Committee launches inquiry into surveillance society

[hat-tip: SpyBlog]

The Home Affairs Committee today [27 March 2007] launched an inquiry entitled “A Surveillance Society?”

The inquiry will consider the growth of numerous public and private databases and forms of surveillance with a direct relevance to the work of the Home Office. They either derive directly from the work of the Home Office and its related public functions or are controversial because whilst they offer the potential to play a part in the fight against crime their use may impinge on individual liberty.

The inquiry will be wide-ranging, considering the following issues:

• Access by public agencies to private databases

• Data-sharing between government departments and agencies

• Existing safeguards for data use and whether they are strong enough

• The monitoring of abuses

• Potential abuse of private databases by criminals

• The case for introducing privacy impact assessments

• Privacy-enhancing technologies

• Profiling.

The inquiry will focus on Home Office responsibilities such as identity cards, the National DNA Database and CCTV, but where relevant will look also at other departments’ responsibilities in this area, for instance the implications of databases being developed by the Department of Health and the DfES for use in the fight against crime.

The Committee’s aim is not to carry out a comprehensive detailed review of the subject of the kind recently carried out by the Surveillance Studies Network on behalf of the Information Commissioner (and published in his report on The Surveillance Society in October 2006); but to build on the Information Commission’s work in exploring the large strategic issues of concern to the general public, with a view to proposing ground rules for Government and its agencies.

The Committee is seeking written submissions of no more than 2,500 words from interested parties, before it takes oral evidence on this inquiry. Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Monday 23 April 2007. Further advice on making a submission can be found below.

Little so far on the criminal justice reform proposals

Not much in the ‘quality’ press so far on Blair’s proposals – but then it is a long, vague, document.

The Guardian (Simon Jenkins also) and the Independent headlines highlight the watching of children to prevent criminality, the articles talk about the other proposals as well.  The Telegraph focusses on the police.

There are articles by Tim Worstall, The Magistrate, and Not Saussure – whom I feel again compelled to quote:

But I cannot end without an example of what seems to me so wrong about this government’s whole approach. In the executive summary (I haven’t got as far as the detail yet) they say:

The Government’s vision is for a cohesive and tolerant country in which citizens share a set of common values and have a sense of belonging to both their community and their country. There are three key elements to realising this vision:

• promoting common values to ensure that all people living in the UK share a common civic British identity;
• building cohesion locally to promote safe and tolerant communities that are close, vibrant, support each other and are resilient to extremist sentiment; and
• addressing actual and perceived inequalities to tackle differences in opportunity by race, faith, class and gender.

I have what I think is a better vision. Let government forget about inculcating shared values, promoting common visions and building cohesive communities. Let it, instead, just let people worry about their own values and visions and leave us to get on with the business of pursuing our own multitudinous ends and ambitions on our own?

When people pursuing their own ends come into conflict, we can usually compromise in a more or less civilised manner. The proper role of government, it seems to me, is to step in, impartially, on those specific occasions when individuals cannot peacefully and informally resolve their conflicts, not to pursue impossible — and, in practice, sinister — dreams of a society in which conflict can never arise.

Groomed from birth

Yesterday I wrote of the PM’s criminal justice proposals that

There is the suggestion that we should “intervene” in a child’s life earlier than the age of eight if we think they are at risk of future offending. I don’t yet know what constitutes an intervention. Also there will be “universal checks throughout child’s development to help service providers to identify those most at risk of offending”. Does that send a chill down your spine?

I’ve been reminded that this story (ThisIsLondon, also in the Times) appeared in the press a couple of weeks ago:

Incredible as it may seem, the Government is proposing — with an entirely straight face — to give babies marks for crying, gurgling or babbling, under a new curriculum for infants aged from birth to five years old, which all nurseries will have to follow.

Playgroups and childminders will have to show that they are helping babies make progress in no fewer than 69 areas of education and development, or else risk losing their funding.

No sooner will an infant exit from its mother’s womb, it seems, than the State will start expecting it to hit performance targets. As one might expect from such a barmy idea, these targets are suitably surreal.

Between birth and 11 months, babies will have to show they gain “physical, psychological and emotional comfort” from “snuggling in”, can “cry, gurgle, babble or squeal” to official requirements, and exhibit an approved level of enthusiasm for their fingers and toes.

And toddlers, would you believe, will have to demonstrate they can “run a rusk around their feeding tray” to prove that they are interested in making marks.

Is this really where we want to go as a society?

New criminal justice policy review

You may have heard that Tony Blair today (27 March 2007) announced proposals for more reforms of our criminal justice system (also here).

The document, Building on progress: Security, crime and justice (PDF 4,198 kb), can be downloaded from the Number 10 website.

I’ve yet to thoroughly read it but I would like to mention a few things that caught my eye.

Much of it is about reforms already in place.

There is once again talk of rebalancing our rights and responsibilities.

There is the suggestion that we should “intervene” in a child’s life earlier than the age of eight if we think they are at risk of future offending. I don’t yet know what constitutes an intervention. Also there will be “universal checks throughout child’s development to help service providers to identify those most at risk of offending”. Does that send a chill down your spine?

You’ll notice some enthusiastic quotes sourced from a “Citizen Summit”. Mr Summit isn’t a person – the following passage explains all:

Citizen involvement in the Policy Review
The Government has ensured that citizens’ views have directly fed into the Policy Review by hosting a series of deliberative forums in Manchester, London, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds to discuss how citizens would deal with the difficult questions that ministers and civil servants face every day.

These discussions centred around three core themes:

• how to improve customer services in the public services;
• how to encourage culture change to improve local communities; and
• how to update the relationship between the citizen and the State.

The forums culminated in a Citizen Summit at Downing Street on 3 March 2007, at which 60 members of the public discussed how to improve public services.

One quote from Citizen Summit:

Sure Start was really good for parenting courses – “strengthening the family, strengthening the community” – really good to bring you into the community. Helped loads of people in area.

This is in a light blue box to the right of, and in a slightly larger font size than this in the main document:

there are a number of additional government policies and programmes (such as Sure Start) which cannot yet be evaluated fully

It seems to me that this begs the question, does Citizen Summit know what he’s talking about? Clearly not in that instance.

(Indeed, if I recall correctly the Government itself concluded that the people getting involved in Sure Start weren’t necessarily the people the Government most wanted to help with the programme – I will strikethrough if I can’t find a reference)

The Ipsos MORI site has a more in depth explanation of the deliberative forums and Citizen Summit. Ipsos MORI organised them. I will try to find the questions/propositions put to the forums and summit. I had heard rumours that some were rather leading but I will see if this is true or not.

Just a little something from the Ipsos MORI site:

There was clear evidence that the more people get into an issue and think about its implications the more prepared they are to reappraise their personal views. People often find it very helpful to hear the views of others in reaching their final conclusions.

Indeed.

Another quote from Citizen Summit:

People should share information – if we’ve got nothing to hide, why are we worried?

Data abuse.

On page 44, it is claimed that facial recognition works.

Another strange passage:

The Government has provided significant funding for IT advancements that facilitate greater access to, and sharing of, information within criminal justice agencies. Recent examples include the £367 million of funding provided to develop a national police database (the IMPACT Programme), and the development of the Airwave radio communications system, which enables officers to access the Police National Computer while in the field.

The police computer system, Impact, was delayed for three years (orginally due for 2007), total cost increased from £164m to £367m and ‘it had emerged that the task was more complex than first thought’ (more detail here).

There were problems with the procurement and rollout of Airwave (citation needed, just an early NAO report at the moment).

i.e. not all rosey.

On the one hand,

Looking ahead, the Government will make greater use of evolving crime detection technologies. The emphasis will be on striking an appropriate and mutually acceptable balance between the legitimate risk-based gathering of information and intelligence by the state and the public’s expectation of privacy, free movement and lawful action.

Citizens are asked to accept the gathering of greater levels of information and intelligence in the knowledge that this will facilitate improvements in public safety and law enforcement.

Bad – I’d rather be shown some evidence than simply accept it.

On the other,

The Government will undertake further work on how best to create a set of strong safeguards and measures to protect the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens. As part of this, clear rules will be put in place regarding how such information and intelligence is to be used, and systems will be established to ensure that the information is used appropriately.

Good.

Yet another strange passage:

expanding the DNA database to all suspected offenders who come into contact with the police.

Doesn’t this happen already? Oh, it’s just arrests, according to the BBC.

There is no suggestion that drugs should be legalised. Some critics of government drug policy argue that drug legalisation would cut crime.

The Government proposes more summary, preventative and civil powers to tackle criminal activity. I’ve written about the orders already available for use.

Here we go again:

crime investigation – data for 2005/06 indicates that 1.32 million offences were brought to justice nationally, an increase of 170,000 on the year before.

I’ve written about what “offences brought to justice” means. In summary, the number of successful convictions has declined, as has the successful convictions as a proportion of the total number of offences brought to justice. Example figures can be found on Hansard.It is the contributions made by ‘non-convictions’ – cautions, formal warnings, Penalty Notices for Disorder, and offences “taken into consideration” by the courts – that have allowed the Government to meet its (unambitious) targets.

I don’t know whether or not this is a good thing.

I’m sure that police officers such as PC Copperfield will be very glad to hear the Government wants a Police Service that

is free from the burdens of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, with fewer targets and mandates from the centre.

The Government has created a “new range of offences”

designed to address the new forms of terrorism and the behaviour that leads to terrorism. These offences also allow the police and security services to intervene earlier in ‘threat to life’ operations. For example, legislation has been introduced to create a new offence of ‘acts preparatory’ to terrorism.

I’m not entirely sure what was wrong with conspiracy to murder and other, older, non-terrorist specific offences. Indeed it seems more terrorists are convicted of offences under non-terrorism specific legislation.
Again on terrorism,

the period of detention for terror suspects prior to charge has been extended, giving the police more time to undertake their investigations. The value of this change has been demonstrated in the investigations into recent plots, which have been larger and more complex than previously seen.

Has its value been demonstrated?

On a lighter note, it seems clear that Ipsos MORI is a member of this conspiracy that Mr Charles Walker MP (Broxbourne, Conservative) recently accused Mr William Heath and Ms Ruth Kennedy of being a part.

Mr Heath and Ms Kennedy, I think that unwittingly you are part of the conspiracy which basically says that your elected representatives are useless so you should go over the top of their heads and go directly to government.

I wonder if Mr Walker now feels he has a more appropriate target for his ire.